Robert Levy (Cato Institute and participant in Heller v DC)
attempts to present [here]
a libertarian case in favor of the Schumer-Toomey-Manchin "universal
background check" legislation. The case he makes is compelling, but
he overlooks some key points. (Let's take the high road and
attribute it to naiveté.)

Levy suggests that "...stonewalling of the background check proposal
was a mistake, both politically and substantively" because the
proposal represented "common-sense gun legislation". (Gee, that
phrase sounds familiar somehow.) He then presents several good
arguments in favor of the "compromise", while blithely ignoring the
following monsters in the corner:

I'd like Mr. Levy to explain, first of all, what exactly the proposal
would accomplish in terms of reducing violent crime, and how it
applies to the incident(s) that spawned this latest wave of
prohibition.

Secondly, I'd appreciate some understanding as to what makes Mr. Levy
think that, once instated, it would not offer yet another opportunity
for abuse by our various federal paragons of "creative" law
enforcement.

Thirdly, I'd be interested in hearing Mr. Levy's correlation of the
proposal's "tolerable restrictions", with the letter and intent of
the 2nd Amendment.

And finally, I'd appreciate an explanation of how Mr. Levy's
arguments are "libertarian". Clearly, there's yet another definition
of that word floating around out there; I'm dying to add this one to
my liberty dictionary.